reset_tree

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the resulting state ('to be empty'), which is useful, but doesn't disclose whether this operation is reversible, whether it can fail, or what it returns. Adequate disclosure of the outcome, but not the surrounding behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, well-structured sentence with zero waste. The action, target, and resulting state are all front-loaded and unambiguous.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-param mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description states the core effect but omits behavioral context (permissions, idempotency, error cases). It is minimally complete but leaves the agent without information about anything beyond the resulting state.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single enum parameter is fully self-documenting in the schema. The description mentions 'bst or avl' but adds no syntactic or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (reset) and resource (tree), and specifies the target state (empty). Distinguishes itself from siblings like insert_node, delete_node, and search_node, which are all value-level operations rather than wholesale resets.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The usage is implied and clear (reset a whole tree), but the description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with alternatives like delete_node, which deletes a single node. No exclusions are stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.